Skip to main content
2 votes
Accepted

Expressibility of statement in generic extension

Yes, this is doable, but not obvious at all! The definability of the ground model was proved independently by Laver and Woodin. Their proofs relied on the ground model satisfying full $\mathsf{ZFC}$, ...
Noah Schweber's user avatar
2 votes
Accepted

Using Fitch System in Coursera

You correctly assume $\exists x p(x)$ and you have to derive a contradiction. With this assumption, you derive $\forall x q(x)$ by $(\to \text E)$. From the assumption ,you have to use $(\exists \text ...
Mauro ALLEGRANZA's user avatar
1 vote
Accepted

Use induction to prove that it can be determined whether or not the disjunction $A_1\lor\cdots\lor A_n$ is a tautology.

Comments: page 17: $(A \to B)$ is the abbreviation of $(\lnot A \lor B)$. Thus, $A_1 \to \ldots \to A_n \to B$ amounts to: $\lnot A_1 \lor \ldots \lor \lnot A_n \lor B$. yes. Removing abbreviations, ...
Mauro ALLEGRANZA's user avatar
1 vote

When is a consistent (formal) system sound as well?

Long list of comments Several issues here: (i) your "system $\mathsf C$" has only one non-logical axiom: $∃x∀y (y \notin x)$. Having the symbol $\in$, this means that we are working in a ...
Mauro ALLEGRANZA's user avatar
1 vote
Accepted

First order logic show the following $\neg \exists x(x\neq m )\vdash\forall x \forall y (Px \rightarrow Py)$

Your proof idea is good! Just a few technical details to be fixed: When you do existential elimination, you need to pick a new constant: a constant that you are not already using in the proof. So, as ...
Bram28's user avatar
  • 103k
1 vote

First order logic show the following $\neg \exists x(x\neq m )\vdash\forall x \forall y (Px \rightarrow Py)$

The symbol $m$ is an individual constant and the premise says that there is only one element ("everything is equal to $m$"). Thus, intuitively, it follows that "if something is P, then ...
Mauro ALLEGRANZA's user avatar
1 vote
Accepted

How to prove Replacement from Reflection?

You can show in this system that there are many transitive sets which preserve the truth of $\Sigma_n$ formulas for each concrete n, which should be enough to complete a proof of replacement. Inf: the ...
Caleb Bash's user avatar

Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible